Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, rape, and burglary. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions. Many years later, Appellant filed a petition to vacate or set aside the judgment, alleging his actual innocence and requesting relief pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-201. The circuit court denied Appellant's petition, finding that Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of timeliness and failed to meet the requirements of the statute. Appellant appealed, contending that (1) the circuit court denied him of due process of law by denying his petition without first holding an evidentiary hearing; (2) the circuit court erred in finding that his petition failed to properly state a claim for relief, was untimely, and was not properly verified or made under penalty of perjury; and (3) he was entitled to a default judgment on his petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court, holding (1) Appellant's due process claim was not preserved for appellate review; (2) the circuit court properly denied Appellant's petition for relief; and (3) Appellant was not entitled to a default judgment on his opinion.

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to robbery. Subsequently, Appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, which was denied. Appellant lodged an appeal in the Supreme Court and filed a motion to have leave to file a belated brief-in-chief. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that Appellant could not prevail if the appeal were permitted to go forward because (1) Appellant's claims were not within the purview of an error coram nobis proceeding, and (2) any grounds for the writ that Appellant might state would be moot.

Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of solicitation to commit capital murder. Subsequently, Petitioner filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction relief. Later, Petitioner filed a motion to amend the petition and then filed an amended petition, which was not verified. The trial court entered an order denying and dismissing the amended petition for postconviction relief. Petitioner appealed, and the Supreme Court granted the State's motion to dismiss the appeal. Petitioner then filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, contending that the circuit court judge had not acted on the original petition. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that by appealing the trial court's order, Petitioner elected to forego the remedy that was available to him of filing a motion for reconsideration, and Petitioner was not entitled to a writ of mandamus to afford him the opportunity to pursue that remedy.

Appellant Patrick Robertson, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), filed in circuit court a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending that the writ should issue on the ground that the ADC had misclassified him as a third-time offender and therefore miscalculated his parole eligibility date. The circuit court denied the petition, and Appellant appealed. Before the Supreme Court was Appellant's motion seeking a copy or use of the record lodged in the appeal to prepare his brief-in-chief. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that Appellant failed to state a ground for a writ of habeas corpus because a claim concerning the ADC's determination of parole eligibility was not grounds for a writ of habeas corpus and Appellant did not raise an issue that called into question the sentencing court's jurisdiction or the facial validity of his commitment.

In 2001, a jury found Appellant guilty of rape. The Supreme Court affirmed. Later that year, before the appeal was completed, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court concluded that it would withhold its ruling on the petition until after the appeal was completed pursuant to the rule. The judgment was affirmed, and a mandate was issued. In 2011, Appellant filed a pro se petition to re-initiate the Rule 37.1 proceeding. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that it was not timely filed. Appellant appealed the order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, concluding that it was clear from the record that Appellant could not prevail on appeal if the appeal were permitted to go forward. If Appellant desired to proceed under the rule, his petition should have been filed in the trial court within sixty days of the date the mandate was issued following affirmance of the judgment in his case. He did not do so, therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to re-initiate the proceedings from 2001.

Bennie Guy entered a negotiated plea of guilty to rape in circuit court. More than a decade later, Guy filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court that asserted his actual innocence, alleged that his attorney had withheld from him DNA test results exculpating him, and sought relief under Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-201 to -208 (Act 1780). The trial court appointed counsel to represent Guy. Defense counsel filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis and, in the alternative, declaratory relief requesting relief under Act 1780. The trial court denied relief. Guy appealed the order and filed a motion that requested permission to file a motion to submit evidence. The Supreme Court denied the motion and, because it was clear that Guy could not prevail, dismissed the appeal. The Court further held that the trial court did not err in declining to issue a writ of error coram nobis or in denying relief or any further proceedings under Act 1780.

A jury found Abraham Grant guilty of capital murder and first-degree battery. Grant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction relief, challenging the subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial court, and also filed a motion to proceed as an indigent. The trial court denied the motion to proceed as an indigent, and Grant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court. Before the Court was Grant's pro se motion seeking an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that Grant's petition seeking postconviction relief was not timely filed, and accordingly, an appeal from the trial court's order was subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Appellant Robert Coleman entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to rape and sexual assault in the second degree in circuit court. Appellant later filed in the trial court a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he alleged that the allegations against him were not true. The trial court denied the petition. Appellant appealed. Before the Supreme Court was Appellant's motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate in his petition that the writ was warranted because (1) in entering his plea of guilty or nolo contendere, Appellant admitted that he committed the offenses, and (2) Appellant's claims that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgments were not grounds for habeas relief.

Gary Cloird was found guilty of rape and theft of property. A decade later, Cloird filed in the Supreme Court a pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The Court granted leave to proceed with a petition limited to certain issues. The trial court ultimately denied the petition, and the Supreme Court affirmed the order on appeal. Cloird then filed a second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis on the grounds that the Supreme Court failed to rule on a motion for appointment of counsel that Cloird filed in the course of the proceeding when he filed his first error coram nobis petition. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Cloird's claims were not grounds for a writ of error coram nobis.

A jury found Appellant Joe Clem guilty by a jury of rape and accomplice to rape. Appellant later filed in the circuit court a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petition was denied, and Appellant lodged an appeal. Before the Supreme Court was Appellant's motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, concluding that it was clear from the record that Appellant could not prevail on appeal and holding (1) Appellant did not demonstrate that the trial court in his case lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment entered was illegal on its face, and (2) Appellant's allegations concerning his counsel's effectiveness and sufficiency of the evidence were not cognizable in a habeas proceeding.